Search Posts
Cool, thanks for the advice, everyone! BTW avr, I know flare isn't "useful", but it is mean, and that's more reason than anything to use it repeatedly and unprovoked. ;) I wonder if anyone here has watched Unforgotten Realms. Edit: (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/unforgotten-realms?page=3)
I took a splash of wizard (wizard 1, fighter 5, and I'll be starting soon into a prestige class that gives bonus spell levels like arcane archer or dragon disciple). The reason for this is it's basically a martial character with a bit of spells under his belt. The spells can be useful, but I've been avoiding spells that are overly-vulnerable to saves or spell resistance, and I'm mostly focusing on self- and ally-enhancing effects. I'm only working with 12 or 14 in my casting stat and my caster level will be 2 (so I'm level 7 character casting as a weak level 2 wizard), so I suspect foes will have a fairly easy time shrugging off my spells. Poor DCs, damage, duration, range, etc are basically what you'd expect from someone who only dabbles in magic (and instead stays busy stabbing things like a fine, upstanding member of the soldiers'/thieves'/assassins' guild). My core question here is... should I be avoiding spells like Flare, Burning Hands and Charm Person, or are they still reasonably effective even for a partial caster? I also struggle with short spell durations and ranges, but enhancing spells have served me pretty well as a part-wizard or -bard or -cleric. I don't mean to limit this to the wizard above... I encounter this a lot when I splash a caster into a build, be it arcane or divine. I basically tend to avoid attack spells because they don't seem all that effective, and spells like Mage Armor and Fox's Cunning can be pretty short-lived. Increasing Caster Level
Metamagic can help with duration, but I don't have higher spell slots in spades. Increasing DCs
Are there other things I can do to make my part-caster's attack and boost spells less... flimsy? Do I need to do them, or is the problem only in my head? Of course for attack spells, there's the occasional spell like acid arrow that's gloriously devoid of spell resistance or saving throws. Such a beautiful spell... even though I'm missing on some duration, that's fine; enemies and townspeople alike are still furious when I use it. But I worry I can't use things like the occasional Charm Person or Flare effectively (even with the mandatory yelling of "I cast Flare!" as I make the unwarranted attack against whatever we meet), because my DCs are weak (low spell level and low caster stat), and any spell resistance critters just give me a sad, empathetic look before returning fire. ;) Is this something I should remedy (feats, traits, etc), work around (careful spell selection), or ignore (those spells are still good)?
Ruggs: Thanks for steering things back. Hunter's surprise is an excellent rogue talent for this, though an adjacent enemy is dangerous for a bow user... ;) No action is specified though, so you could potentially designate the adjacent enemy as a free action (is that correct?), take a 5-foot step away, and unload arrows on the target. It lasts through your next turn, so when that starts 5-foot step back as needed and full-attack again, for two rounds of full sneak attacks. Let's see if I can avoid screwing this up (eyeballing it at the end of the day, so I make no promises). At 10th level (the earliest you could do it), you're looking at 2 rounds of 4 arrows fired each (with rapid shot and manyshot) at +5(x2)/+5/+0. Of those arrows, those that hit deal 1d6 (shortbow) + 5d6 (sneak attack) + any other bonuses (point blank shot, arrow/bow effects, etc). Should everything hit, that's 48d6 + 8*dmg bonuses in 2 turns. Am I getting that right? If so, no wonder it's 1x/day only. ^_^ Still, that generously assumes everything hits at rogue's poor accuracy (including the rapid shot penalty and possibly firing into melee if you didn't grab precise shot). Enemies at L10 will not be eager to let you do that often without resistance and retribution. They'll quickly conclude that letting you fire from safety or step back is not allowed, and keep you swarmed. Ah the counter-play. I would recommend a splash of fighter or ranger to get Point Blank Master and/or weapon specialization, but bleh. By bwain ish tyrd.
Those sniper goggles are indeed nice. ^_^ The stag helm isn't bad either. Good point Sniggevert, I missed the melee part.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the reasoning in the second example; in fact, it's any ranged attacker's dream. But you'd want to playtest that in a number of scenarios to make sure it's not horribly exploitable. And I don't just mean by the players -- monsters have sizable resources, and you could easily find your party in an inescapable total wipe situation simply because your monsters followed the rules of the world to their natural conclusion. ;) The first example basically assumes the enemy is unaware of combatants who are not adjacent. The rules avoid doing this for a number of reasons, particularly because if they're not aware of you, you can sneak attack to your heart's content.
CraziFuzzy: I don't understand why it would only work in RAW. When flanking, you're dangerous to an opponent because you're drawing their attention in multiple conflicting directions and limiting their options, and that creates openings for both you and your flanking buddy. It's hard to defend on opposed sides effectively. You can flank with reach weapons in their threat range. If you train to threaten just as effectively with a bow, why couldn't you use that to compromise your enemy's defenses? As for invisibility, that gets into the separate issue of whether an invisible creature can flank normally. He could sure as hell exploit the opportunity...
When I looked at Snap Shot and Flanking, it seemed to add up. As long as you threaten a square, you can flank that square with an ally (with the right positioning). Snapshot causes you to threaten adjacent squares. Though future errata will be more definitive, and your GM is always the final judge. I wish the devs were more on top of errata. These sorts of things matter. :(
Good point. I had forgotten about the Sniper archetype (I tend to not be able to take archetypes in our games). By sniping penalty, do you mean Stealthy Sniper (-10 instead of -20 to stealth to stay hidden after attack)? Yea, if you're sniping from a hidden position, it's probably going to make or break your volley (or your spine, should they reach you). ^_^ Nefreet: Thank you for the catches and corrections. I hadn't thought about Snap Shot, particularly with Improved Snap Shot when you're threatening 15 feet away. Either is still uncomfortably close, but the option to do it when you're able is powerful.
I've been trying to find a comprehensive list of ways to pull off a sneak attack (particularly for a ranged rogue, who struggles to flank). I haven't found one, so I figured I'd post the list I have so far. Links to any list others have posted would be very helpful (sorry if this is duplicate information!). I'm trying to keep this list limited to core Paizo (no 3rd party), as that's my limit when playing. You won't sneak attack all the time, but it helps to know your options. Sneak Attack Limits
Target Is Denied Dexterity Bonus
That's not getting into any specific strategies for creating these opportunities (a list which is long indeed, and generally involves your party), but it hopefully covers the general bases. Am I missing any critical scenarios?
For crafting, the ability to make your own shields might be good (so you can make a new shield if yours is lost, damaged with rend, confiscated when you end up in jail, etc). But craft alchemy has a lot of potential. Gnomes love tinkering with alchemy and/or traps and other devices, and an archer bard could have a lot of fun with that. Ask your GM if you could do some fun things with Raining Arrows like firing tanglefoots and alchemical fire vials attached to the tips of arrows (just a different substance in the raining arrow, instead of holy water). The vial shatters on impact and releases the substance as though it were thrown, adding a lot of potential versatility to your arsenal (though you do have to craft or buy each one). That sort of clever tinkering is a fun implementation of the gnome ethos, IMO.
Another alternative to shield focus is Arcane Strike. It's a +1 bonus that will bypass DR/magic+1 and a little bit of extra damage is always nice (using a swift action that's often available). It will work for both bows and melee. Plus, it's infinite use, so when you want to preserve spells and/or performance rounds for later (or you run out), you still have something that lasts as long as you have arrows to fire.
At this point I'd ask: which are you more interested in roleplaying? Looks like the mechanics of either choice are sound and fun, but if you have any preference toward halfling or toward gnome, go with that.
I did. Specifically, I asked him to just build my character to his liking and I would then quietly auto-pilot it through whatever story he wanted to tell. He didn't take that well. We made some peace after that, but things haven't necessarily gotten better. Remembering that event alone makes me realize I should leave after all... that was a miserable experience. He gave me a pretty mean-spirited dressing-down, describing me as a cheating munchkin because I had bought trip arrows, an adamantine arrow, etc; this coming after he recommended I look into buying some special arrows. And waiting until combat started to inform me... Were that the only incident then I would shrug it off, but this has been going on for a while (it's why the cleric left). I don't think I owe it to the other players to stick around. If I leave his game he'll try to sabotage the game I'm running by leaving it (we're at 4 players now; if we drop to 3 the group may fall apart). But at this point I'm not willing to put up with more crap just to avoid having my own game end.
Cool. So now I have some fun backup plans in case this character dies (which is possible -- we have no healers, and a piano is better when played so I'm not playing cautious or defensive). If I leave the game (which is also quite possible), I have new fun characters to try under more favorable circumstances. Thanks!
Chris: Thank you. Diminutive Titan: If you're still watching this thread, I'd love to hear how your character turns out!
That's a great point, I hadn't taken a paladin archer seriously until now. So a paladin archer with perhaps a level or two of fighter to help with feat starvation, or simply pure paladin. The main trick will be roleplaying this paladin in any campaign -- lawful good and codes of conduct can be tricky business. I can no longer fill kobolds with arrows on account of they were there... I as a player need to concoct a plausible reason to commit evil in the name of good. ;) Yes I'm an evil player, but I'm playing a lawful good character so all is well! I kid, I kid. Kinda. maybe... Stats for Human Paladin (do I need more Charisma?)
L1 Point-Blank Shot
Ouch, 2 skill points per level just like fighter. I had forgotten about that... Looks like Diplomacy and Sense Motive are my best bets, given the character I'll typically play. Word of Healing and Rewards of Grace might be good, since I'll be occasionally healing but probably separated from the melee characters who need it the most. When I heal as a standard action, a +1 attack bonus on my next turn doesn't hurt. Alignment Channel makes a lot of sense since evil outsiders are core to the campaign and undead are typically on the side of good (long story). I maybe should drop to 12 Str and 8 Constitution. I can afford the loss of HP and Fortitude because I'm ranged and I enjoy good AC and saves. A bit less composite bow damage may be reasonable since I'm able to smite when it really matters, and I have the bound weapon bonuses. This would get me to:
TBH I'm not very familiar with Paladins, having never played one. I've watched another player do it, but I'm not sure which feats and spells an archer paladin wants most. I'll have to go exploring. Any suggestions? Thanks!
Ah, I understand now. Here's what I'm up against. I pursued AA specifically because of its ability to deal bonus elemental and holy damage as an archer. We're fighting a lot of creatures with DR and other protections, especially demons, daemons and devils etc. Also, GM is ban-happy. Good stuff like Clustered Shots gets banned in an instant. Any stat-on-a-stick (headband of intellect etc) and flaming sword type items are banned or hard to obtain. It's going to be tough. Plus, our last campaign with this GM taught me to never, ever again play a melee class, since it often feels like every enemy flies, has a climb speed of 80 in the treetops, teleports, slows the party, or otherwise outpaces all melee units who try to engage on foot. I spent all my time as a melee fighter running around at top speed and not engaging anything. We've tried being mounted, but the GM keeps making us lose our mounts (usually through story events that are outside our control). Ultimately it comes down to being either a caster or an archer, which are the two types of character who were able to consistently participate in the previous campaign. I feel sorry for our Barbarian and Paladin... With Arcane Archer, I basically sought to be reasonably competent at both archery (which is repeatable so long as I have arrows) and magic (which widens my options and enhances the archery). I'm a decent caster in that I can use helpful spells to enhance allies and myself, and I'm a good archer who is always able to contribute in combat and deal out the hurt. I'm currently playing a wizard-fighter (1 level of wizard) who casts abundant ammo, but I'd prefer to be charisma-based since for baffling reasons I always end up playing the party face (I currently have -2 to charisma skills). Also, spontaneous casters are treated better by arcane archer (gaining new spells) and they don't rely on carrying a spellbook that might be vulnerable to loss. I'm just waiting for that to happen... Bard also has many party-helping effects that won't be severely impeded by a lowered caster level (inspire courage, party-assist spells like Heroism, etc). I'm not sure whether that's better or worse than sorcerer. Bard also offers lots of fun stuff out of combat. To more directly answer your three "do you want..." questions: 1) Yes, to some degree. I want to be able to, say, fire a sound burst from long range (though the stun DC will be poor, sadly), or have an arrow blast out a Darkness aura around the target, inhibiting its and its allies' vision for a turn while we deal with a different group.
2) Yes. I'm primarily an archer who casts the occasional spell or effect (bard performance, abundant ammo), not a caster who might fire the odd arrow. I imagine myself casting a spell and starting bard performance in the first round of combat, then spending the rest of combat shooting feverishly at anything that moves with enhanced and/or imbued arrows. 3) Dealing with DR is always going to be a challenge in this campaign, particularly because I'm limited in arrow special materials and feats. The same applies to dealing with creatures with special movement that makes reaching them challenging, and perhaps even creatures with special qualities like ghosts and banshees, etc. I'd like to be an archer with a wide range of options that don't rely on equipment, as equipment and stuff outside my character is always going to be transient (horses, weapons, armor etc either will never come into our possession, or are very easily taken). Arcane Archer brings full BAB growth, some spell advancement, enchanted and elemental arrows that are equipment-independent, holy arrows for dealing with evil outsiders, and the ability to occasionally fire a phasing, seeking, or imbued arrow. I basically went looking for a class that's archer friendly, offered useful magic qualities, and didn't ask too much in return (since I'll have most of its requirements already -- point blank shot, precise shot, and weapon focus are not bad, and some spellcasting never hurt anyone). That said, if AA is not the route to take, I'm all ears. I'm not especially familiar with the options out there. AA requires a lot of investment to get to holy arrows, for example, and I may want to ditch it a lot sooner than that (level 3 or 4, probably). I'm also pretty open on what to use as my base class. Just be aware that I'm always at the mercy of a GM that explicitly bans stuff like Headband of Intellect, Clustered Shots, etc and soft-bans things like Snap Shot (they're really banned, but he won't *say* they're banned). So I may have to dance around several options until I find one he doesn't find irreconcilably offensive. Dear lord... the argument over Clustered Shots. And over adamantine arrows. And on and on...
I want to second the recommendation for halfling rogue or bard. Those sound fun. For Bard, carry a shortbow and use Arcane Strike. You'll spend the first part of combat starting a performance and probably casting a few party-assisting spells, but arcane striking is a free and repeatable way to still contribute quite well to combat for as long and as often as you need. You also have a few cantrips that are reusable. Occasional uses of Flare and Unwitting Ally are fun ways to harass enemies and help allies without convincing your foes to focus on you, and fun uses of prestidigitation and ghost sound can help you mess with enemies' heads. And remember to keep the occasional Vanish or other panic button available in case you're in danger. As of 4th level, your bard can cast invisibility on himself and decrease the chances that enemies will pick fights with him -- they can still hear him casting enchantments on allies and performing etc, but as long as you're not hostile, they have better targets than the guy who they have to guess at and strike blindly. I also like the archery paladin suggested above. You're looking at great HP, AC & saves, and you'll be a decent half-archer and half-healer. I should mention though:
Better to risk death and have fun doing it than survive as a long-term "meh".
Attributes (human):
Feats (FYI humans in this campaign don't get a bonus feat):
Gauss: I'm trying to make a bard who's also an effective arcane archer. And I want the build to basically be fun. It won't deal max damage by any sense of the word, but it should be effective at killing enemies and empowering the team. Also, I'll probably be the party face. Imbicatus: Good point, I've fixed arcane strike (I did some last-minute shuffles, that's why it was wrong). I assume you mean I'll be using a composite longbow with STR1 or STR2, and that's why strength 10 would harm my damage. I'm a little worried I won't be able to cast 5th level bard spells (which I'll be picking up around level 16). I believe at the last second I'll also pick up 6th level spells (L20). We don't have stat-on-a-stick items so I won't be able to artificially boost Cha, although Eagle's Splendor might count?
Sounds good, feat scrapped. Attributes (human):
Feats (FYI humans in this campaign don't get a bonus feat):
I'll be wielding a composite longbow and wearing light armor (padded leather or lower, as Dex mod climbs).
How thrilled are people about Pinpoint Targeting? I could pick it up around level 19, so it's pretty late-game and it only allows a single shot. However, it ignores all Armor/Natural/Shield bonuses to AC, basically like making a ranged touch attack with my bow. It also inherently ignores any cover and concealment beyond Total because of its prerequisites (improved precise shot), though I'm already getting those bonuses to my other attacks. Sadly it cannot be combined with rapid attacks, vital shot, etc. One shot maybe isn't all that impressive. It can use Bullseye Shot (which isn't necessary), Deadly Aim, and Arcane Strike though. It won't play nice with most uses of Imbue Arrow and can't work with Seeker Arrow. How useful is it to eradicate the enemy's physical armored AC bonuses for a single shot?
So once creatures are exploiting cover and concealment, a bard or rogue archer just doesn't have the accuracy to deal with them. Ouch, okay that's important to note. I'm guessing that's particularly a problem at high levels, where the lost BAB starts to really accumulate. If I have 4 or 5 levels of bard, maybe even 7 (for move action performance), I'm at a -1 or -2 to attack compared to a full BAB class. However, those are probably the last bard levels I'll take, and Fighter and Arcane Archer both have high BAB growth. I'm not sure what I'd do at higher levels if I didn't take the full AA path, probably more fighter levels to get its features. This may be a situation where the Bullseye Shot + Vital Strike + Arcane Strike combo is really helpful, compared to Rapid Shot + Manyshot. The +4 bullseye shot attack bonus (when I have a spare move action) and the lack of penalties from rapid shot and full round attack cumulative penalties may give the bard the ability to tag his foes reliably again, and then he does a small amount of extra damage with vital strike and arcane strike. This also fits with the bard's play style and action economy better, as he's often more concerned with switching around his performances and moving out of range of foes than dealing maximum pain per turn. Or is it still better to go with rapid shot and manyshot?
I have another question (sorry to keep reviving the thread). If this character dies and/or I go to a different gaming group, I'm considering switching to a Bard Arcane Archer. My question is, should I go full, 100% bard, full fighter with a tiny splash of bard, full bard with a splash of fighter, etc? The fighter levels would drop in extra feats (very helpful), proficiencies, and a few useful class features like armor training and weapon training (depending on the number of fighter levels). The fighter also doesn't give up a BAB every 4 levels. Alternatively, Bard just has so many fun bonuses, and he always benefits from more caster levels and spell levels. However, since I'm primarily focused on being a archer and the bard levels are there to enable arcane archer, I'm okay giving up some spell levels etc. I'm primarily an archer who occasionally casts. I'm thinking 2 levels of fighter for the bonus feats, maybe a third for armor training (to get the most dex bonus + armor bonus). At least 4 levels of Bard for inspire competence, bardic performance, 2nd level spells, etc. That means I would start AA levels around level 8 or 9, and I have 2-3 slush levels that could be either class. So I could fill the rest of those levels with Fighter and have more archery and mounted feats to play with (and higher attack rolls), or I could fill those levels with Bard for his performances (inspire courage +2, for example, to help the entire party), spells, and other fun tricks. If I do 7 bard levels and only 1 fighter, then I can start my performance as a move action and still get a shot in (e.g. a vital strike). So! For those who have played something like this before or seen it played, do you have advice on what's more fun to play? Even if it's the less powerful option overall, if it's more enjoyable then I'm all in.
For some reason I thought we were talking about the arcane archer's Seeker Arrow. ;) In those situations I'd personally rule that Seeker Arrow has a divination component to it, so a target that's out of sight and shielded by lead wouldn't be locatable. Anything that doesn't fool Find Person or related divinations wouldn't fool trick shot. But even then, that leaves a lot open. And I'm not the GM in this case. As for Trick Shot... that gets messy. That seems like a power that's intended to be mitigated by an assertive GM least it be abused.
voska66: That actually sounds like a pretty reasonable houserule. Either that or a small penalty to damage (you're bypassing DR more easily, but doing slightly less damage than if the foe had no DR). For example, -2 damage, or the damage die size category drops by 1, so d8 -> d6 per arrow or something. I'd have to think for a while about what would be most fair and balanced. That sounds like a much better path to take than simply banning the feat. I'm all for adding cool options while balancing with trade-offs. Edit: Range penalties are another option, e.g. only works within 30' ala point blank shot. Or reduce range increment by half, so long-range clustered shots quickly become unmanageable.
BTW:
Sadly it doesn't work for divine classes. :( Would have been ideal for that cleric. Still nice for a wizard/bard/sorcerer with arcane archer though. DesolateHarmony: Sorry, missed your post. Yea, if I switch to composite longbow, gravity bow adds some delightful potency to Vital Strike. It's funny, my GM was actually telling me off for taking Gravity Bow because he thought it could be combined with Enlarge Person. I had to explain that no, it's not that overpowered because arrows don't work with Enlarge Person; I'm totally not munchkining it as much as he was imagining in his head. Still going to be unlikely with gravity bow though -- that may ultimately be another unspoken banned feat. He likes to not explicitly mark things as banned . Technically Clustered Shots is the only option officially in our ban list -- other feats and spells are just silently condemned through unspoken rules which players discover the hard way. :(
Imbicatus: yea, that's how I'm feeling about it. Broken: That's awesome. I can see how Vital Shot is valuable for a medium BAB growth character with a wider stat spread, since their lowered accuracy and attack count means one heavy&accurate hit can be very helpful. I also love the feel of making one attack count, instead of needing to rely on rapid-fire. Like you said, feels like Robin Hood. It would be neat if there was a divine variant of Arcane Archer, btw. ^_^ We talked in my campaign about homebrewing a prestige class that attaches scrolls to arrows, activating the scrolls on hit. Or an alchemist archer, imbuing each shot with a splash potion or other alchemical effect. I haven't pursued it though, since it sounds like a high-gold-upkeep class. Not sure what turns me off about that, just seems vulnerable to flat-lining if time, cash or materials become scarce.
Ah, so it's like bumping the thread so it doesn't get buried, or adding it to your watch list. Thanks for the explanation. ^_^
Dot for later reading. ? What do you mean? DOT = Damage Over Time?
voska66: That's actually pretty close to my suspicion. There's a big disconnect between how the players want to play and how the GM wants them to play, and we're struggling to meet in the middle. He wants to be subtle and he hasn't defined things fully in advance, and that's trouble. A lot of the time he doesn't have a clear idea of what's off limits until a player does it, and then they get in trouble for "munchkining" and cheating. From the GM's perspective that may well be the case: that player has sabotaged the game the GM wants to run. But from the player's perspective he's being slapped in the face for doing what he thought he was supposed to do. My ears are still burning from the day he announced mid-battle that special materials and ammo types (which he had personally recommended I try out with my arrows) wouldn't be allowed, and passive-aggressively tore me down in front of the group and then privately in e-mail for trying to use them. At least, it felt passive aggressive for him to accuse me of cheating and saying I made a big deal of such a minor thing. If he's trying to guide us toward a more fun way to play, he's going about it all wrong. :( I like how KainPen put it -- you should be up-front and direct with your players on what's not allowed, in advance, and not treat them like scheming little cheaters when they trip over an unforeseen limit. Changes should be discussed on pleasant terms, working with your players instead of taking a hostile stance. Give the players a chance to adjust their characters if changes have to be made mid-campaign. And leading the players through subtle means like a carrot on a stick shouldn't end in beating the players with said stick. *grumble grumble* I think one of the most valuable lessons I've learned from this whole experience is what not to do. I'm a big fan of limiting material to fit the campaign, match the story, to balance things, etc. I'm doing that in my Mayhem campaign. But I should be up-front with my players and treat them with respect -- even when they're powergaming, it's not a personal attack against me and I shouldn't attack them. With luck I'll be a better and more fun GM and player after all this, whether I stick with the campaign or not. As for retraining, I'll look into that. I'm wishing I had understood the composite bow rules better earlier, I could have avoided this. Derp. :)
The trick is I cannot retrain out Weapon Focus without removing Weapon Specialization first (because it depends on weapon focus: shortbow). :(
Thanks. I would GM a Pathfinder game, except I'm already running a Mayhem RPG campaign and the cleric is running a game of Numenera. Last time I tried running a D&D campaign it was 4th edition, and this same GM did everything in his power as a player to munchkin the hell out of the system... so I don't know where he gets off making us out to be the bad guys. :( And yea, 3.0 and 3.5 were not any better balanced than Pathfinder by any means. Rose-tinted glasses combined with what he calls the "gentlemen's agreement" to not abuse the system are probably why he remembers 3.0 being better. One friend is seriously considering leaving the game, and I'm losing interest in it too. We may simply bow out together.
Rerednaw: I'm right there with you. I'd love to see the full list of house rules too -- it would sure reduce the number of surprises we have during play. The first time I decided to cast abundant ammunition on my quiver of special arrows, the GM announced "oh BTW, I looked at the special materials in Pathfinder and they're just ridiculous. Looks like just a bunch of stat boosts and excuses to munchkin." or something to that effect. He did this in combat, after I had already cast abundant ammo. He's lunged all kinds of surprises like that, and it's always our fault as players, you know for being munchkins. >.> This GM is a D&D 3 and 3.5 veteran, and he's always trying to "correct" Pathfinder to work like D&D 3. He seems to think everything in Pathfinder is wildly overpowered and needs to be tamped down to an acceptable level. I don't know enough about how D&D 3 played to really respond to that... but we all signed up to play Pathfinder, not the unrecognizable and constantly morphing system we're left with. We've lost one player already to it, and I and one other player may be close behind. CraziFuzzy: Cool, I'll look into modifying my build for Mounted Skirmisher. It's too bad I'll have to wait until at least level 9 and 14 to pick those up though. :( avr: Yea, I considered Point Blank Master. I'm hesitant to take it, depends on what the GM thinks. He might be really incensed by the idea of an archer not provoking OAs to fire. I already know from earlier discussions that the snap shot chain is dangerous ground and not to be discussed. Gauss: Yea, I know that about manyshot. Good point on +3 bonuses, I hadn't known about that. I wonder if my GM will accept it though... He's changed so much already. Adamantine arrows are already banned. Cold iron and alchemical silver are allowed, most other useful materials are unlikely. I came up with a totally unique ammo system (house-ruled) that better fit what the GM was thinking would be appropriate for the campaign. It allows a lot of tricks (raining arrows filled with acid, etc) but it's still in testing. Not sure how it will pan out. If it ever proves fun and useful, that may be the end of it. Sorry about my feat progression being off. As for being mounted all the time, my impression was that I could make full attacks while my mount moved for me. Looking at Mounted Skirmisher was the first clear indication that it doesn't work that way. Or maybe I got mixed up because early in the build I was planning on using Bullseye + Vital Strike while my mount moved for me (before switching to my current build plan). Bah, stupid brain. And thank you for the text on composite longbow! I hadn't realized that. I may have to find some way to retrain my shortbow-specific feats (assuming the GM doesn't take issue with that too...? Or claim it's just a bug in the text...). As for the GM adjusting monsters so we're not overwhelmed, that's what he says he's doing. I don't think I can count on spellcaster allies to buff me. The few we have left in the party don't really focus down those lines. Our cleric already left the group out of disgust (and he was our only healer). He was planning on getting a variety of equipment to make his build viable, and the GM sprung the "no stat-on a stick and no mithral" rule on him after the fact. That basically hosed his mid- and long-term plans, and he was done. I'm all for playing a story-driven campaign with restrictions, but those should be clearly stated and agreed upon right out the door, not sprung on the players mid-action.
Don't forget that rapid shot is an option so you ofter better with that. Actually I included Rapid Shot above. Did I miss something in my attack counts above? To be more succinct: Option 1: Full Attack
So I'll make 3 attack rolls at +12/+12/+7 vs AC, and hit with up to 4 arrows, assuming good rolls. Each hit will deal 1d6 + 6 damage. If I reduce the attack roll with Deadly Aim, I get +9/+9/+4 vs AC and each hit deals 1d6 + 12 damage, but I don't expect to hit reliably with that many hit penalties. Option 2: Single Attack
+18 vs AC; 2d6 + 6 damage
So it's a matter of whether enemy AC is frequently high or low, and how often I need the extra damage for breaking past DR (which is common in this campaign). I suspect getting an average of 2-3 hits in with the 2 attack rolls at full attack bonus (rapid shot + many shot) is more valuable than a single shot with +6 to hit and 2d6 weapon damage (vital strike + bullseye shot), but I'm not sure. Rapid attacks easily do more damage if they hit and they're not chopped down by DR, but that's two big IFs. ;) Arcane archer in a few levels will boost the damage even more, adding an enhancement bonus and eventually +1d6 fire/lightning/ice damage. I suspect that tips the scales firmly toward rapid attacks...?
Bullseye Shot is a fun feat that could help your ranged touch attack spells as well, but if you are already feat starved it's hard to recommend. That's a very good point, I hadn't thought of my ranged touch spells. Since I have at least 1 spare feat slot, that makes it a very good option. The next step is to start watching closely in combat and see how often I'm going to miss with my -5 on 2nd attack. That should give me a good idea of whether a feat or more are worth spending on the vital tree. I haven't been keeping good track of enemy AC, though it does seem to vary wildly in some cases. Sometimes we fight something with low defenses but obscene DR, for example; other times the enemy's AC seems overly high. Thanks Chooky!
I'm playing a fighter-archer with a level of Wizard. Around level 8-ish I'm expecting to start into arcane archer levels. I'm primarily an archer who occasionally casts the odd spell, not a spellcaster who occasionally fires the odd arrow. I realize I'm making un-optimized choices right out the door. I've noticed a lot of min-maxers say go full-caster or go home, and the idea of taking vital strike is heresy in these forums. DON'T BURN ME INTERNETS! ;) THAT SAID, I'm playing with a GM that has banned Clustered Shot and a host of other "offensively over-powered" material, in his words. Anything that's considered even remotely powerful on these forums will come under fervent suspicion and result in another banned option (I've proven talented at finding them in our game). We also won't be getting any "stat on a stick" gear like Dex+2, nor "munchkin" materials like darksteel or mithral etc (again, GM hates it). A lot of the default recommendations for an optimized character won't be accepted in our campaign. So I'm not here to ask for min-max help, just to get advice on whether I'll realistically get much use out of a specific feat combo. Also, we're playing a highly customized campaign. For example, my human gets +1 AC, Ref, Will, & Fortitude instead of a bonus feat and skill points. I mention this just in case people are wondering about the missing feat. ;) I chose a shortbow because I try to be mounted all the time. I have the mount spell, but sadly that takes a round of preparation at the start of combat to get going. I had a light combat-trained horse, but became separated from it during a (fairly unavoidable) story event, which sucks. I don't think I'll ever find it again. Other players have sustained comparable losses. I don't think I can ever depend on gear, pets, or other material possessions sticking around, ever... so I may not buy another horse. I'm currently at Level 6:
Initiative is +11 (5 dex mod + 2 from Reactionary trait + 4 from familiar), allowing me to act early in combat. I don't wear armor for fear of a spell failing, though maybe I should. My other trait prevents being flat-footed when I'm not aware in combat (Defensive Strategist). Feats:
I'll be picking up Many Shot and one other feat on my next level, and Arcane Archer on the level after that. To deal with the DR that seems to play a central role in this campaign, I have one of my few spell slots devoted to Abundant Ammunition so I can get the most use of the cold iron and alchemical silver arrows, among other custom campaign materials I find. At level 8, my damage bonuses will be:
With some spare feat slots coming up, I'm thinking of taking Vital Shot and Bullseye Shot. Maybe later I would even pick up the Improved and Greater Vital Shot, though the feat cost at that point is prohibitive. Stupid non-scaling feats. Unfortunately, I'm using a shortbow because I was planning to be mounted all the time (longbows and horses do not mix gracefully). That reduces the potency of a vital shot. Also, part of the advantage of being an archer is that I can get off a full attack fairly often because I don't necessarily need to move to be in range. This further reduces the need for vital strike. However, full attacks come with some pretty severe accuracy penalties with each additional shot. Sure at level 12 I'll be making 5 attacks thanks to rapid/manyshot, but with rapid shot's penalty and the reduced BAB per attack, the shots are made at a -2/-2/-2/-7/-12 penalty, which can be ineffective against a high-AC foe (correct me if I'm getting my numbers wrong). Employing the aim penalty of Deadly Aim here could be a bad idea (-5/-5/-5/-10/-15). Plus, if I'm not able to use Abundant Ammunition, that's spending a lot of (potentially valuable or limited) arrows to deal with DR (because of the absence of Clustered Shots). Thus:
Assuming only 2 of my arrows in a full attack will hit on average, I'd be looking at 2x 1d6 + 7 damage (or 2x 1d6 + 13 with deadly aim). Instead I could simply vital strike for 2d6 + 7 or 2d6 + 13 damage with a lot more accuracy and DR-penetration. Unfortunately, I'm not a T-Rex and I can't depend on Gravity Bow or other effects to make my weapon die more ominous. I have very few spells per day, and a low duration on each spell. And if I did find a clever way of boosting the damage die, I'm pretty sure I'd get nixed by the munchkin-hating GM. ;) So here's my question:
Thanks all!
Actually, that brings up an interesting alternative. Could you have a player learn some basic necromancy spells (like animate dead)? Because Skeletons and Zombies might make excellent crew to handle the basics of ship operation, swabbing the decks, watching for approaching ships, etc. They do have a certain level of intelligence and, if I remember right, skeletons are pretty perceptive (they see unnaturally instead of with normal eyes). Might want to double-check that though. Also, skeleton archers and swordsmen make a great line of defense against attackers. All of this frees up you and fellow players to focus on more important tasks. That might be much cheaper than constructs... However, you have to wonder whether your group and NPCs are okay with having a literal skeleton crew on board. ;) Some characters will be terrified of the undead, superstitious, etc.
Selective hardening with armor isn't a bad idea though. If you look at what people did with normal real-world ships (as well as ships in some fantasy settings), they tend to armor the base of the mast and certain places that are critical to protect or the ship is SOL, but the rest remains wood. You'll handle the rest with protective enchantments, long sight & stealth, and destroying the enemy quickly to minimize the damage you take. What you really need is floating castle in the sky. Made of stone for arrow and fire resistance. And floating with the power of... love? Yes, the love of children being housed in the dungeon levitates the castle. And their tears power the orbital cannons! It's brilliant. BRILLIANT! And they called me MAD!!!!
Snowleopard:
These both say ironwood is as strong, heavy, and resistant to fire as steel. So it's glorious stuff, but still heavy. If they were doing steel armor plating, then a thin layer of Ironwood on the exterior of the ship might arguably be just as good (and then they could use wood-repairing spells etc), but that would be a discussion to have with the GM. Chances are isn't not an ideal option at this time.
I'm somewhat curious. Do most DMs do this? Count the cost of an airship towards the PCs' WBL? It strikes me as...counterintuitive. I mean, the entire purpose of WBL is to manage the PCs' power level. Counting an expensive non-combat item like an airship, or say, a homebase like a castle, against WBL seems like it would make WBL relatively meaningless. You couldn't use it to gauge/control the PCs' power level because it would have no bearing on their actual abilities, having been bloated by completely RP purchases... I'm confused by that strategy too... It certainly discourages (punishes, even) any and all roleplay acquisitions and player cleverness, and reinforces the idea that you're supposed to be playing the game for its combat and only combat. Though most everything else is like that. If you take a roleplay-oriented feat or prestige class, those are levels or feat slots that you don't have for combat. Many things in Pathfinder are designed to be either-or, and insist that you choose combat or roleplay (with the occasional offering that does justice to both, but rarely). So I guess some GMs assume the same must apply to wealth, and set out to enforce the rule.
I wonder, what if the rogue's target played dead (using a bluff check) upon being hit? Then when the rogue comes to loot, he gets a knife/club/etc in the face? :D
I agree, you do need those encounters that remind you "holy crap, I can launch fireballs from my hands and totally incinerate those things! That was awesome!". The treadmill of increasingly powerful foes always matched perfectly to your abilities can get very tiring, and very disillusioning. There's less satisfaction in leveling up and becoming exponentially more powerful if you don't get to revisit your old pond and incinerate the amoebas there that used to give you trouble. :D "Hello Merlo. When you last knew me, I was too weak to face you..." *bursts into flames and summons elementals* "...BUT NOW I AM MORE POWERFUL THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE!" That sort of occasional experience is rejuvenating to the soul. Wholesome, even. Likewise, sometimes you need to face a real challenge, something that strains your abilities or forces you to run away, to remind you of your limits and give you a goal of something to eventually overcome and overpower. Someday you're going to make even THAT THING bow to you. I personally intend to cast flesh to stone on it, then use the resulting statue as part of the components for a stone golem, one of dozens that will guard my palace halls, ever vigilant against threats to my absolute rule... ...but I digress.
Neat discussion. To the original poster:
I power-game often, and I've GM'd a few times. I've seen abuse (and sadly been an abuser) on both sides in the past, and learned from it. It's important to have a GM who is willing to work with you and treat you right. If you overstep a line or cause problems, some GMs will cause rocks to fall and kill your character outright. On the first infraction. You can guess how fun that is for the player. On the other extreme, some GMs don't lay down fair ground rules, and the game just doesn't work right when the players are not challenged or kept under a basic level of threat. What I'm hearing from you and other posters is this:
2) He has min-maxed his stealth to an insane degree. Nothing is able to beat his stealth roll. He's sneaking and sniping with impunity. 3) He's getting fairly cocky (and maybe condescending to you and/or the campaign?) about how "invincible" he now is. This is not healthy. It's disrupting the storytelling, the other players (?), and you. It feels abusive to the GM, players and rules. 4) You want to resolve the abuse, but without mistreating the player. Rocks falling and killing him is unfair, as is using encounters specifically designed to outright invalidate his build. 5) There's some discussion of how stealth works, but that is being resolved. You have some new tools now, and if you've been too lenient on the rules you can fix that. 6) You can modify encounters to challenge him better, but without invalidating him (or increasing difficulty for the other players). The occasional enemy that can smell him out, see past his stealth, etc will mix it up, but not every enemy will do this. 7) Roleplay your creatures. When he shoots a deer, the rest of the herd flees at high speed (he would be hard-pressed to keep up with them and stay stealthed); shoot a bison, and the herd may charge (and stealth doesn't prevent trampling). Likewise, shooting humans, orcs or other creatures may provoke a variety of responses: running and hiding, charging/attacking, flaming and smoking him out, sending dogs or casting spells to find him, etc. Let some NPCs escape to spread word of the threat, so that some future encounters will be a little more ready for him.
8) Talk to the player. If he's showing a lot of attitude, this needs to be dealt with by you, but maturely. Maintain the moral high ground. In terms of his min/maxing being disruptive to the story, if the additions above are not fixing the problem, talk to him about it. Often players and the GM can talk on grounds of mutual respect, with the shared goal of playing a fun game and telling a good story. If he won't play ball, then you can use the tactics discussed above to increase the pressure on him. It's fair game. 9) He's laughing it up now, but in a few levels this isn't going to work so well anymore. Enemies enjoy higher perception, and have more neat toys that get around even great stealth (even greater invisibility fails vs tremorsense or true seeing). It may be fine to let him have his heyday for another session or two (with some damping from the suggestions and rules clarifications above). After all, snipers are terrifying in real life for a reason... but people don't just stand there and take it. Between the NPCs' efforts to find him and his diminishing returns with growing level, he's eventually going to realize he's min/maxed himself into a corner. You can generously allow him to rebuild his character if you like, but with a gentleman's agreement that he won't be abusive when he does so. But if he doesn't change his build too much (which I think would be a good thing), it may be a lot of fun for both of you if he's gained a reputation for his actions, which could both aid and haunt the party in the future. Living through long-term repercussions and creating new chapters through player actions can be a lot of fun, and increase the immersion the party enjoys.
10) I prefer gentleman's agreements over hard lines and hostilities, but sometimes you get that player who's way too busy pelvic-thrusting his way to self-obsession in front of a gem-studded mirror to ever look away and reason with you. Sometimes you have to get tough and lay down the law. That might mean ruling against him in the rules of stealth or available source books; it might mean introducing encounters that inhibit or disable his abilities (either occasionally or often, until he's willing to play ball); or it might mean having NPCs react in a way that puts him in a lot of danger. There are a lot of ways though to remind him that he's not invincible, and any illusion of being untouchable is just that: an illusion. Even players who are perfectly within the rules with insane power abuse (see the discussions about crazy-powerful spells) have to deal with rule 0 and rule 1, which are in the book specifically to allow the GM to put sane limits on what happens and stop the game from collapsing in on itself. When all else fails, you can still salvage the situation.
Good luck, man!
Yes, you try putting heavy armor inside of soarwood and you effectively defeat it's purpose, because the ship will be too heavy to lift off the ground. Airships aren't generally the things you use to move a lot of cargo. But what about all that human cargo I needed to transport for the dragon's feast? He will not be pleased! The rules may allow some armoring still, you'll have to check. But you probably won't be able to add 6-inch steel plating etc. It's not a flying fortress.... yet. *note to self: build flying fortress
After discussing this with my GM, he partially agreed with the article and also had some issues with it. It's definitely an over-simplification of a much larger conversation. But there are some things our GM is already doing similar to its recommendations, including having us encounter things well above or below our level (and it's our choice how we deal with them -- fight, talk, intimidate, avoid, manipulate like puppets, etc). He also said lower CL combats go faster not because they're easier, but because there's less power being thrown around. From previous conversations with him, I think there's a lot behind this statement: 1) More power on both sides of the battle means more caution and defensive play, because a total party wipe is more dangerously close. The "combat swing" is more volatile with higher power levels, and a bad roll or two can suddenly turn a manageable encounter into a disaster. So players instinctively avoid doing things that are creative but risky. This also limits what players can justify doing: if you're not contributing heavily to killing the enemy faster or saving the party, you're killing the party. 2) More power (offensive and defensive) on the enemy means it takes longer to kill him, because he has more evasion, higher HP, and more options to defer death and avoid threats. 3) More power adds more things that must be tracked (abilities, conditions, movement modes, etc) And so on. So you don't want every encounter working that way. Players have more fun with an encounter like that when it's not every encounter. And the really tough encounters mean more when they have those.
colemcm:
Spellcasting is likewise not all-or-nothing. It takes a certain amount of study/practice/focus to delve deeper and deeper into what it has to offer. The martials with casting ability (ranger, paladin, even bard) have such limited spell access because they're not dedicated to spellcasting the way the wizard, cleric or sorcerer are. The dedicated spellcasters gave up a lot to get where they are, while the martial-with-casting did a half-and-half job, enjoying benefits from both sides but no intensive specialization in either. Pandora's:
Also, we need to strong-arm these other guys into contributing to the wiki and gathering everything up into one place so things don't get lost/buried. I have a plan: You hold them, I'll hit them?
edduardco:
So it's not accurate to say Wizard and Fighter are on the same footing in terms of skill points. It's just not being honest to ourselves when the default wizard will have 6+ per level and the default fighter will have 2 or 3. colemcm:
For avoiding the OA: Maybe make a basic dex/int check vs opponent's wisdom? Might be too simple though, and heavily favors certain characters on one side or the other. Note that there are also weapons which overcome the OA issue for specific maneuvers, though that does restrict the player's weapon choice a lot. If the maneuver feats were reworked the way we were discussing pages back, we might not need any special OA bypass rules?
Have you considered lining the deck and exterior of your ship with dwarves, to absorb impacts from cannons and put out fires? But not elves. Elves cause cancer.
There's another low-cost solution: surround the ship with ragged, tattered cloths. Make it look like you used to proudly display your nation's insignia, but haven't kept it up and the cloth looks terrible now. BUT it covers the ship's nicer features and makes it clear you're just a ratty old merchant ship without a maintenance budget. It's a cheap solution that should work for a little while, giving you a chance to work on other options.
I just read that article on revisiting encounter design, and I like it. Stretching the party's resources over more and weaker encounters and using equal or greater CL as the tough fights has a lot of valuable effects, like forcing players to manage their resources differently and encouraging more risk taking. Our current campaign only grants XP on completing quests, not stabbing things, so each encounter is a barrier to success instead of an opportunity to print more XP. And most enemies don't drop valuable loot, so it shouldn't hurt balance at all. I'd like to try it. I don't think it's as simple as sending a swarm of low-level orcs at the party to be dispatched by a fireball. There's a lot of variety in encounter design beyond clustered minions (though I can understand awp832's concerns). It's definitely worth some experimentation. |
